INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

Simulation Study
Lunchtime at Beryl
Harshad Deshpande 1101011 Venkatakrishnan G 1101044 Mohak Jhaveri 1101073

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl 1. Introduction A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The behavior of the system as it evolves over time is studied by developing a simulation model. A model is defined as the representation of a system for the purpose of studying the system. In this project, a simulation model for the Mess at the Boys Hostel is built in order to analyze and recommend improvements. 2. Simulation Study Methodology The simulation study involved the steps followed in Discrete-Event System Simulation 4e. page 13. The study began with a clear definition of the problem followed by setting of objectives and the overall plan. The model was conceptualized into a business process and later translated into a simulation model in Arena. Data was collected through observational techniques in person and on video recordings. Verification of the model was established through consistent runs of the system and further validation with the real-world process was performed by comparisons to observed values. Alternatives to the system involving capacity and server constraints were further modeled into the system. The simulation was run for different parameters and the values were further generalized to give recommendations. 3. Problem Statement Formulation Indian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli (IIM T) is temporarily located in National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli (NIT T) campus, which in itself is located on the Trichy-Tanjore highway 25 kms away from the city. IIM Ts PGP, which is its flagship course, is a residential course with students having to stay compulsorily on the campus. IIM T presently has a total student strength of 192 for its two-year PGP course. There are 122 male students and 70 female students presently enrolled in IIM T. The 122 male students are housed in a hostel named BERYL, while the girls are housed in a hostel named OPAL. While all students of NIT T have a central mega mess for dining, IIM T male students have the privilege of having the mess located inside BERYL itself. The mess for the boys is located on the ground floor in one of the halls which has a seating capacity of 48. The mess operates 4 times during the day breakfast, lunch snacks and dinner. The timings are as given in the table below. Breakfast Lunch Snacks Dinner 7.30 am 9.30 am 1.00 pm 2.45 pm 4.30 pm 5.30 pm 7.30 pm 9.00 pm
1

Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

In the previous year, there were only 70 boys enrolled in IIM T and hence, the mess process was less crowded. Every student who came to mess could easily find a place to sit and eat. With the intake of additional students in the present year, the mess has come under constrains. As most students have classes at different times i.e. class timings are 8.00 am, 8.30 am, 10.00 am and 10.15 am, there is no seating constraintduring breakfast. As most students skip dinner and snacks, the mess is not under constraint during these periods. As the student arrival rate for lunch is governed by the ending time of their class prior to lunch, the mess faces problem during such time. When majority students finish their class at 1.15 pm and 1.30 pm, students find long queues and them having to share seats (seating 4 instead of 3 on a bench). IIM T authorities have undertaken the renovation of an adjacent hall for seating purposes, but students feel it will be uncomfortable to go and sit in the adjacent hall for dining. Simulation Modeling can be used effectively to understand the what-if analysis of various situations that might arise in the mess. Our Simulation Modeling analysis plans to focus on the following aspects: What is the effect of majority students finding their class ending at 1.15 pm and 1.30 pm respectively and having a class starting at 2.30 pm? Is there a need for a new hall even for lunch (maximum seats required in mess)? What is the maximum number of seats required in the mess to if the number of students residing in Beryl becomes 192 which is Beryls housing capacity? What happens in worst case scenario all 122 students come in 30 minutes?

4. Objectives and Project Plan The objective of the project is to analyze the existing solution for providing effective service to the students in terms of what, how and where they prefer to eat. The process involves a multitude of real world distributions and cannot be effectively tackled using basic mathematical models. Meddling with the real system would cause deep variations in the behavior of the students resulting is frustration and a physical model is not very useful since the system is dynamic. Moreover the what-if analysis is easier done when the system is simulated. The effectiveness of the existing system and alternate ones would depend on the utilization of the infrastructure and time spent in the system.

Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

5. Model Conceptualization 5.1. The Business Process Our main focus during the case is student behavior during the lunch and dinner timings. The layout of the mess can be shown as below. A student generally enters and collects a plate. While some students decide to wash the places others directly proceed to the food counters. A student might decide to proceed to counter 2 or counter 1 depending on his daily habit. Items that are served according to the counter: Counter 1 All main course food items are generally served at counter 1. Counter 1 typically consists of rice, sambhar, rassam, dal, vegetable, roti, and certain extra items. To avail the extra items a student has to sign on a sheet and hence, takes a little more time than ordinarily taken to take the dish. At any particular time, only one student can be taking one of the food dishes as only 1 spoon is available for the same. The exact dishes vary according to day of the week and time of the day lunch, dinner. A might decide not to take a dish and proceed to the next food item available. At counter 1, a queue is formed from the right if observed from the entrance. Counter 2 Spoons, curd, lime juice, pickle,
Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri 3

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

sugar and butter milk are the items one would typically find on counter 2. Lime juice and curd are served only during lunch, while butter milk is served only during dinner. Student typically take more time to fill lime juice or butter milk as they sometimes fill more than 1 glass of the same every day. At counter two a queue is formed which is in direction of the entrance to the kitchen. A student who visits counter 1 first, can skip counter 2 totally, but vice versa is not possible as food is available only at counter 1. After taking the food, a student sits on the benches, which can seat 3 students on each side of the table. But in case of rush hour, students adjust and seat 4 people on each side of the table. A student might re-visit counter 1, 2 or both to refill their dishes in case they wish to do so. After a student is done with dining, he she might wait for their friends to finish before leaving. Students keep their plates in the wash area, before proceeding to their rooms after a healthy meal. 5.2. Business Process Mapping

Usually the model is visualized before being translated into a simulation language. Where, the business process in unclear, the model may be conceptualized using one of the visualization tools such as a flow chart.
Student enters the Mess

Picks up a plate

Student washes the plate?

Student proceeds to?

Picks up food items from some of the sub-counters in counter 1

Picks up food items from some of the sub-counters in counter 2

A
Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri

B
4

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

Student proceeds to?

Student proceeds to?

Student gets seated in the Sitting Area

Student exits the System

6. Data Collection Accurate data collection is necessary to eliminate Garbage-In-Garbage-Out (GIGO) problems in the system. In this project data was collected by observational methods using video and in-person observing techniques. Data on arrival, selection of counter, selection of food items was collected based on which the probability for each of the activity was determined. Process Student Inter-arrival Time Student deciding to wash plates Student visiting counter 1 first Student deciding to skip counter 2 after proceeding from counter 1 Student deciding to skip a particular dish at counter 1 and 2 Time taken to fill plate with a particular dish Time taken at lime juice, butter milk counter Students revisiting Student deciding to skip counter 2 after proceeding from counter 1 during revisit Student deciding to skip a particular dish at counter 1 and 2 during revisit Time spent dining Time spent dining after revisit Time Taken (seconds)/Percentage Follows an arrival schedule 65% 98% 5% Varies with type of dish Triangular (10, 15, 20) Triangular (15, 20, 30) 70% 50% Varies with type of dish Triangular (10, 12, 20) [minutes] Triangular (5, 7, 15) [minutes]

Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

Arrival Schedule
12 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 6 8 9

1:00 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:25 2:30 (till the given time in PM)

Though the arrival can be approximated to a triangular distribution, it is modeled in this project as a schedule (multiple schedules for multiple cases). We have entered data every quarter hour. 6.1. Input Modeling

Arrival Distribution: Arrival is very much seasonal depending on the students class schedule for the day. Fitting it into a normal distribution is possible but not preferred because of this fact. The nature of the process is that it is memory-less and independent of the earlier arrival. Hence multiple arrival schedules are built and given as input to the system. Here, the existing behavior for a Monday lunch is given as a fixed arrival schedule. Output analysis for different schedules can be performed on a need-basis. Time spent at each food counters and Time spent for first sitting & subsequent sittings: Since the time spent at different counters vary according to the queue and the persons desires, we have modeled the time spent as a Triangular Distribution based on observations and input from the workers in the Mess. Why triangular distribution? The processes described above are usually a normal distribution in the real world, but such distributions are difficult to measure. Hence a triangular distribution, (significantly better than a uniform distribution) which is easier to measure and validate, is used. 7. Model Translation The model concept was translated into a Simulation in Arena for ease of multiple simulations.
Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri 6

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

8. Verification and Validation The model is verified by consistently similar results with same inputs. Multiple runs were similar for the system and the model behaved very much as expected from the simulation.
Input: 48 seat Capacity, 1 counter for each dish, Arrival by schedule = 92 ( Max: 122 arrivals) Output Metrics: Seat Utilization : 2.5% , Counter Utilization: 0.8% to 3.3%, Avg. Time in System: 23.83 minutes, Sitting Queue = 0 mins Output Metrics: Seat Utilization : 3.6% , Counter Utilization: 1.3% to 4.8%, Avg. Time in System: 27.02 minutes, Sitting Queue = 0 mins

Existing Behaviour

Input: 48 seat Capacity,

Verification Case 1

1 counter for each dish, Arrival by Random (Expo) = 0.5 min = 122 ( Max: 122 arrivals) Input: 10 seat Capacity,

Verification Case 2

1 counter for each dish, Arrival by Random (Expo) = 0.5 min = 122 ( Max: 122 arrivals)

Output Metrics: Seat Utilization : 17.13% , Avg. Time in System: 133.37 minutes, Sitting Queue = 55.10 mins

The model was validated against the real-life values. Negative, garbage values were not present. Moreover the real systems observed system values, such as time in the system was close to the simulated values. For different inputs, such as arrival schedule, the system behaved differently as expected and observed from the real system.

Existing Behaviour (in simulation)

Output Metrics: Avg. Time in System: 23.83 minutes, Sitting Queue = 0 mins

Time spent in system: 21 minutes

Existing Behavior (observed values)

No one was found waiting for a seat Face validity confirmed by workers in the Mess

Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

9. Output Analysis The model was simulated using Arena to find two factors affecting the productivity of the mess: the queue size at counter 1 & counter 2 and the optimum number of seats required in the mess. 1. Find optimum number of seats so that there is no queue for seating at all. OptQuest for Arena was used to find the optimum number of seats. Behavior Maximum Queue Optimum Size Seats Required Existing Behavior Counter 1 7 35 Counter 2 2 If 192 students reside in Counter 1 7 50 Beryl (Since, 122 students presently reside in Beryl, we Counter 2 23 use a scaling of 1.5 for the schedule) The maximum queue in the second case is relatively high and hence, we tried with 2 counters instead of one counter at counter 2. The new optimum and maximum values are: Counter Maximum Queue Optimum Seats Since Required 1 5 62 2 2 2. Worst Case Situation: If all 122 students arrive within 30 mins. i.e. 1.30 pm 2.00 pm. In such a situation, the maximum queue length for seating is restricted to 2, but the queue at counters 1 and 2 increases above 20. We try to find the optimum seating with 2 counters for both counter 1 and 2. Counter Maximum Queue Optimum Seats Since Required 1 8 79 2 5 This situation is a tail end possibility, which may happen only once in a year. 10. Recommendations of the system The existing system, though, on the face of it seems a very bad (in terms of people getting over-seated, long queues etc.), is relatively better and no increase in the seating capacity or the counters is recommended. But is this optimal enough? What if the number of students is increased? We deal with the recommendations on two
Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri 8

Simulation Study: Lunchtime at Beryl

Simulation Modeling for Decision Making

fronts: One, technical in-depth analysis or system rebuilding and two, business recommendations for the Mess. 10.1. Technical recommendations 1. Increasing the sampling period to a month in order to capture seasonal patterns and changes accoring to student schdules and menus. 2. Optimizing multiple objectives: If the cost-based approach for queues are adopted, then multiple objectives of optimizing time in system and queues can be done. 3. Focussed system simulation: By considering a part of the system to be a black box, a focussed simulation model of the system can be built in order to get specific results and a magnified overview of the system and solve for specific problems. 10.2. Business recommendations 1. Is the new seating area necessary in the existing scenario? No. This is because of the fact that the seating queue length is zero, counter queue lengths are minimal, seat utilization is 2.5% (which is very low for a seat capacity of 48). Optimal seat capacity to maintain a zero seating queue at all times is just 35. 2. In case of increase in the number of students at Beryl, how will the current system respond? When the students increase to 192 (maximum capacity at Beryl assuming single occupancy) the system reponds by a consistent increase in queue-lengths at every counter in counter 2. But the seating queue was unaffected (remained zero) in contrast with our expectations. The bottleneck in the system is the counter 2 queues and a replication of this counter is one recommendation if number of students is increased. Eventually, on this replication the bottleneck shifts to the seating queue and the additional hall might ber required. Output analysis found that an optimal solution might be 62 seating capacity and a replication of counter 2. 3. For a maximum occupant hostel, the seating capacity required in mess is 62 (given that the lunch interval is constant). This can be implemented in the existing hall and there is no requirement for opening a new seating area which can be further used for other recreational purposes.

Harshad Deshpande, Venkatakrishnan G and Mohak Jhaveri